Posted on 02/12/2003 8:08:47 AM PST by CHICAGOFARMER
Americans swamp French Embassy 'It never stopped, it was crazy,' said diplomat after 1,000 calls
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31001
-------------------------------------------------------
France's history of military failure ---------------------------------------------------------
The military history of France:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/letters.asp
Gallic Wars – Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2,000 years of French history, France is conquered by, of all things, an Italian.
Hundred Years War – Mostly lost, saved at last by a female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare: "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman."
Italian Wars – Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians. Wars of Religion – France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots
Thirty Years War – France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.
War of Devolution – Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.
The Dutch War – Tied.
War of the Augsburg League / King William's War / French and Indian War – Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Francophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.
War of the Spanish Succession – Lost. The war also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.
American Revolution – In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome," and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare: "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."
French Revolution – Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.
The Napoleonic Wars – Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.
The Franco-Prussian War – Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.
World War I – Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.
World War II – Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel song.
War in Indochina – Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu.
Algerian Rebellion – Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a Western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare: "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.
War on Terrorism – France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.
The question for any country silly enough to count on the French should not be "Can we count on the French?" but, rather, "How long until France collapses?"
G. Kilber
By the way, I don't care if the French support us in our upcoming war with Iraq. Considering their combat record, why should we?
Nor do I.
And it's unbecoming for us to behave like a bunch of jilted schoolgirls just because the mighty French army won't be at our side in Iraq.
Not all of us feel that way.
In fact, I'd prefer to think that most of us--when we can momentarily escape the feminized squealing of our corporate media--are still capable of rational, measured consideration of matters of grave importance.
As to whether France owes its "very existence" to our repeated sacrifices, let me suggest that you bone up on the history of WWI and WWII, paying particular attention to President Wilson's role in the former. History is not so simple as American public schools and media outlets like to pretend.
The Austrians actually sued for a negotiated settlement, with the endorsement of the Pope, but President Wilson refused to allow anything but an "unconditional surrender" modeled on Appomattox. The French (along with the Germans and the Austrians) paid for the American President's intransigence with millions more unnecessary casualties and the wholesale destruction of what used to be called Christendom.
Less than 20 years later, an embittered young house painter named Adolph Hitler stepped into the vacuum left by the Habsburgs and flooded Europe with the blood of millions more innocents on all sides.
The point of all this being, again, that history is never so simple as our primitive modern textbooks suggest.
Do we "owe" the French eternal loyalty for their invaluable aid at Yorktown? Of course not. No more than the French "owe" us eternal loyalty for our role in WWII.
But this could go on forever...If you are interested in reading more on WWI, I'd highly recommend a book called Leftism Revisited by the Austrian conservative Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. Our own William F. Buckley once praised him as "the world's most interesting man."
Actually the French King supported the colonies against the British because he couldn't beat them with his own army. The French people showed him what they thought of that a few years later when they separated his head from the rest of his body.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.